❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA Government's budget self-promotion advertising campaign, its origins, planned future campaigns, and associated costs. The answer defends the campaign and criticizes the previous government's spending.
AnsweredQoN 792Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Government’s current State Budget self-promotion advertising campaign and ask -
(1) Was this campaign at the initiative of the Public Service or of the Cabinet (by which term I include persons employed as advisers)?
(2) If by the Public Service, who within the Public Service recommended it?
(3) Are any similarly politically initiated advertising campaigns planned for the period between April 30 2003 and December 31 2003?
(4) If so, which portfolios are involved and what is the focus of each of the campaigns?
(5) What media will be used and what is the estimated cost of each of the campaigns?
(6) What provision has been made in the current budget to pay for these advertisements?
(1) Was this campaign at the initiative of the Public Service or of the Cabinet (by which term I include persons employed as advisers)?
(2) If by the Public Service, who within the Public Service recommended it?
(3) Are any similarly politically initiated advertising campaigns planned for the period between April 30 2003 and December 31 2003?
(4) If so, which portfolios are involved and what is the focus of each of the campaigns?
(5) What media will be used and what is the estimated cost of each of the campaigns?
(6) What provision has been made in the current budget to pay for these advertisements?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 June 2003
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Premier
Response time
26 days
The Member’s suggestion that the Budget is a self promotion campaign is without foundation. The campaign informs the community about the State Budget and directs them to a website for further information. The advertisements are factual and neither the radio or print advertisements make reference to the Premier, or the Labor Government. While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
The advertisements are factual and neither the radio or print advertisements make reference to the Premier, or the Labor Government. While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
(3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
(4) - (6) Not applicable.
The advertisements are factual and neither the radio or print advertisements make reference to the Premier, or the Labor Government. While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
While Budget advertising has occurred in this State for many years, there are significant differences in the current Government’s approach. The Gallop Government’s Budget promotion is less costly, and has never contained photographs of the Premier or political statements. Further, every year the Government has volunteered to the Parliament the estimated cost of its Budget promotion prior to the delivery of the Budget. Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
Individual agencies have also been directed not to produce their own expensive Budget promotion materials – a common practice under the former Government. The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
The Member may recall that the Court Government spent up to $214,000 on Budget promotion and advertising, including Community Newspaper wrap arounds, and a coloured 16 page pamphlet to every household in 1998/1999. This advertising carried photographs and a signed message from the Premier, as well as references to the Coalition Government. Indeed, in the 2000 Budget advertising, the Premier’s foreword stated “the achievements of the Coalition Government over the past seven years have laid the foundation for a golden decade for Western Australia”- a political statement by any standard. Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
Regrettably, the advertising makes no mention of the five Budget deficits in eight years, the $4.8 billion in asset sales and privatisations, the gross overspending and the imminent loss of the AAA credit rating. For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
For the Member’s information, the Court Government appears to have spent $184,171 in 1997-98; $168,170 in 1998-99; $214,137 in 1999-2000; and $164,359 in 2000-01. The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
The 2003-04 Budget promotion was the initiative of the Government, as would have been the case with the previous Government. (3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
(3) The premise of the Member’s question is incorrect. (4) - (6) Not applicable.
(4) - (6) Not applicable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.